DIDAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this case would relate to powers of the authorities under the B.S.F.Act (for short "the Act") to remove an employee from service on the basis of his conviction for an offence by criminal court. Another incidental issue would arise in regard to the effect of release of an employee on probation subsequent to the passing of the order of conviction and the effect thereof on the order of removal in this regard. Yet another issue, which may also arise, is whether respondent - authorities were justified in removing the appellant by invoking the provisions which apparently may not apply or was not an enabling provision to pass an order of dismissal.

(2.) The facts which would give rise to the issues, as noted above, are that the appellant - plaintiff had joined the B.S.F.service in 1971. He had nearly eleven years service to his credit, when he was dismissed on 6.9.1982 on the ground that he had contacted second marriage while his first wife was living. The appellant would say that there was no cause of complaint against him and he had performed his duties with utmost honesty. As averred in the suit, the appellant comes from Mazbi Sikh family and was married at very young age. He would say that his wife never came to live with him. As per the appellant, his parents decided to arrange another marriage for him. His first wife filed a complaint with the police leading to his conviction for an offence under Section 494 IPC on 20.4.1982. The appellant appealed against this order before the Court of Sessions and ultimately before this court, when this Court while maintaining the conviction, had given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and released him on probation on 11.1.1983.

(3.) The grievance of the appellant, thus, is that his Commandant totally ignored the provisions of Section 12 of the Probation of Offeners Act and removed him from service without holding any formal enquiry or without issuing any show cause notice. The appellant would term this order to be arbitrary, illegal and void. Submission is that the effect of the order of his release on probation was required to be considered even though the order of his removal was passed prior to his release on probation. The appellant accordingly filed a suit after having served a notice under Section 80 CPC impugning the order of his removal from service, which, according to him, was served to him at his house at Amritsar.